Page 4 of 5
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:03
by Chairman Bux
RicheyJames wrote:Chairman Bux wrote:RicheyJames wrote:
oooh, get her! i didn't know i needed an obnoxious bastard licence
Well now you know.
but i still don't care.
It’s not a matter of caring, it’s a matter of either having a licence or shutting the f*ck up.
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:13
by RicheyJames
Chairman Bux wrote:RicheyJames wrote:Chairman Bux wrote:
Well now you know.
but i still don't care.
It’s not a matter of caring, it’s a matter of either having a licence or shutting the f*ck up.
alright, you can get back in the box now.
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:16
by Chairman Bux
RicheyJames wrote:Chairman Bux wrote:RicheyJames wrote:
but i still don't care.
It’s not a matter of caring, it’s a matter of either having a licence or shutting the f*ck up.
alright, you can get back in the box now.
Are you going to behave?
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:20
by markfiend
RicheyJames wrote:it's always been back foot in front of the return crease and front foot behind the popping crease hasn't it?
Back in the day (well before either the 2000 or 2003 rule changes {or refinements}) it just used to be the
back foot (within the return crease obviously) but behind the
bowling crease. Gus Fraser always used to bemoan the change IIRC, saying that just watching the
back foot increased the time between the umpire signalling a no-ball and the delivery reaching the batsman, so giving the batsman more of a chance to score from the no-ball. Why a bowler should like that aspect is beyond me, but I do remember Fraser used to be particularly bad at no-balling with his front foot.
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:20
by RicheyJames
Chairman Bux wrote:RicheyJames wrote:Chairman Bux wrote:
It’s not a matter of caring, it’s a matter of either having a licence or shutting the f*ck up.
alright, you can get back in the box now.
Are you going to behave?
have i ever not?
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:23
by Chairman Bux
RicheyJames wrote:Chairman Bux wrote:RicheyJames wrote:
alright, you can get back in the box now.
Are you going to behave?
have i ever not?
That all depends upon how one defines "behaving".
Personally, I classify behaving as being nice to people. But then I have the required licence so I do not need to behave. And I rarely get personal.
Don’t make me come over there and bitch-slap you.
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:30
by markfiend
Ahem. Back at the cricket please gentlemen?
I was discussing the no-ball law?
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:32
by Chairman Bux
markfiend wrote:Ahem. Back at the cricket please gentlemen?
I was discussing the no-ball law?
Meanwhile, back in the crease....
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:34
by markfiend
Chairman Bux wrote:markfiend wrote:Ahem. Back at the cricket please gentlemen?
I was discussing the no-ball law?
Meanwhile, back in the crease....
Indeed. And in the past 10 minutes or so, I managed to find this
clicky to prove I'm not imagining things.
I out-cricket-geeked Richey!
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:36
by Quiff Boy
markfiend wrote:Chairman Bux wrote:markfiend wrote:Ahem. Back at the cricket please gentlemen?
I was discussing the no-ball law?
Meanwhile, back in the crease....
Indeed. And in the past 10 minutes or so, I managed to find this
clicky to prove I'm not imagining things.
I out-cricket-geeked Richey!
if sam donut was here, he'd show you a thing or two about cricket-geekiness
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:37
by Loki
Mark, you are beginning to seriously worry me.
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:37
by RicheyJames
Chairman Bux wrote:RicheyJames wrote:Chairman Bux wrote:
Are you going to behave?
have i ever not?
That all depends upon how one defines "behaving".
Personally, I classify behaving as being nice to people. But then I have the required licence so I do not need to behave. And I rarely get personal.
Don’t make me come over there and bitch-slap you.
sorry, i just don't do "nice" (which, just for the record, is one of the laziest words in the english language). on the other hand, i do try to avoid personal insults. most of the time.
and if you want to give me slap you'll have to get in the queue
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:40
by markfiend
Johnny Boy wrote:Mark, you are beginning to seriously worry me.
I just like to show that I'm never wrong.
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:40
by Chairman Bux
RicheyJames wrote:Chairman Bux wrote:RicheyJames wrote:
have i ever not?
That all depends upon how one defines "behaving".
Personally, I classify behaving as being nice to people. But then I have the required licence so I do not need to behave. And I rarely get personal.
Don’t make me come over there and bitch-slap you.
sorry, i just don't do "nice" (which, just for the record, is one of the laziest words in the english language). on the other hand, i do try to avoid personal insults. most of the time.
and if you want to give me slap you'll have to get in the queue
Point taken, but you really do need to relax a little. You're way too uptight.
Take a day off, get the TV out into the garden and watch the cricket with a cold beer. Relaxxxxxxxxxx.
And I probably wouldn't bitch-slap you myself anyway - I'd get one if my minions to do my bidding. SG?
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:44
by markfiend
Do we really need the whole discussion in nested quotes? It's sending my eyes funny.
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:46
by hallucienate
markfiend wrote:Do we really need the whole discussion in nested quotes? It's sending my eyes funny.
I kinda like it, wait until it gets to the event horizon and the posts in the middle start to get sucked into the vortex!
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:46
by Quiff Boy
markfiend wrote:Do we really need the whole discussion in nested quotes? It's sending my eyes funny.
it is kinda nice when you scroll down the page really quickly though
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:47
by Quiff Boy
hallucienate wrote:markfiend wrote:Do we really need the whole discussion in nested quotes? It's sending my eyes funny.
I kinda like it, wait until it gets to the event horizon and the posts in the middle start to get sucked into the vortex!
thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:49
by hallucienate
Quiff Boy wrote:hallucienate wrote:markfiend wrote:Do we really need the whole discussion in nested quotes? It's sending my eyes funny.
I kinda like it, wait until it gets to the event horizon and the posts in the middle start to get sucked into the vortex!
thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?
.si ti ,sey
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:55
by Quiff Boy
hallucienate wrote:Quiff Boy wrote:hallucienate wrote:
I kinda like it, wait until it gets to the event horizon and the posts in the middle start to get sucked into the vortex!
thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?
.si ti ,sey
that was actually quite hard to read
bet it took a while to type didnt it?
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:57
by RicheyJames
Chairman Bux wrote:Point taken, but you really do need to relax a little. You're way too uptight.
au contraire, mr chairman. if anything i'm a little
too relaxed these days. much to my boss' chagrin.
Chairman Bux also wrote:Take a day off, get the TV out into the garden and watch the cricket with a cold beer. Relaxxxxxxxxxx.
did that yesterday. well, apart from the garden bit but then i'm happier surrounded by concrete and tarmac than trees and grass anyway.
Chairman Bux finally wrote:And I probably wouldn't bitch-slap you myself anyway - I'd get one if my minions to do my bidding. SG?
i think you'll find that she's always at the head of the queue anyway. why d'you think i'm so relaxed these days?
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:58
by markfiend
Quiff Boy wrote:hallucienate wrote:Quiff Boy wrote:
thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?
.si ti ,sey
that was actually quite hard to read
bet it took a while to type didnt it?
!t'ndid gnikcuf ti teb I
Posted: 25 May 2004, 15:59
by hallucienate
Quiff Boy wrote:hallucienate wrote:Quiff Boy wrote:
thats when everythimg starts going backwards isn't it?
.si ti ,sey
that was actually quite hard to read
bet it took a while to type didnt it?
epon.
Posted: 25 May 2004, 16:04
by RicheyJames
markfiend wrote:Ahem. Back at the cricket please gentlemen?
I was discussing the no-ball law?
sorry, i appear to have become a little side-tracked...
anyway, fair point well made. to be honest i don't recall the time before that rule change but then i have trouble remembering last week. and as for the link you posted - that appears to refer to one day cricket which is nearly as bad as that twenty20 rubbish
Posted: 25 May 2004, 16:21
by markfiend
RicheyJames wrote:sorry, i appear to have become a little side-tracked...
I noticed
RicheyJames wrote:anyway, fair point well made. to be honest i don't recall the time before that rule change but then i have trouble remembering last week.
Well, to be fair, I don't remember the 1950s either. I just remember Gus Fraser always going on about it, and looked it up.
RicheyJames wrote:and as for the link you posted - that appears to refer to one day cricket which is nearly as bad as that twenty20 rubbish
Well, the bit about the old no-ball rule isn't about the one-day game:
The classic case is the no-ball rule. For readers under the age of sixty, it should be pointed out that the no ball rule used to apply to the back foot of the bowler in his delivery stride. Your front foot could be as far down as you'd like, but the back foot had to be behind the line which is in line with the stumps at the bowlers end.
That is actually why the line is there.
In the late 1950's some fast bowlers, of whom Gordon Rorke was the most obvious, started to drag their back foot way over the line so that the back foot ended up on the popping crease. Instead of doing the logical thing and saying that the back foot had to STAY behind the line, they introduced the front foot no-ball rule.
The rest (about having a free hit on the ball
after a no-ball
) is to do with one dayers though.